I have decided to go ahead and post my recent email correspondence with Noam Chomsky, without his permission, and against his wishes, despite his claim that by doing so I am violating his privacy, and despite my earlier statement to him that I would respect his privacy.

In my most recent newsletter (sign up by emailing me at kbarrett@merr.com) I explained that Chomsky had backed out of our scheduled interview on false pretenses, and that I was considering posting the correspondence, in which he falsely calls me a liar. I do not like being called a liar, and I would like to find out what others think about this when they read the email record.

There seems to be no legal objection to publication. One of my newsletter subscribers, Bill Scott, sent me his unsolicited opinion: "In the opinion of William Sumner Scott, Esquire of The Scott Law Firm, P. A. of Miami, FL, Prof Chomsky may be quoted without direct comment upon what he said or edits without his permission - his voluntary transmission of his email to me includes the right for me to republish was he said as long as my publication is accurate."

Whatever the law says, I would normally respect my email correspondents' right to privacy. But in Chomsky's case I am making an exception.

Chomsky has accused me of lying, based on this email record. If he is right, I need to know that, so I can apologize to him and avoid making the same kind of mistake in the future. If he is wrong, as I believe he is, I think his persistence in a clinging to a demonstrably false belief, as shown by this correspondence, needs to be taken into consideration by those who take seriously his statements on gravely important subjects, especially the 9/11 controversies.

Our correspondence, in which we largely agreed in our critiques of empire, "agreed to disagree" on 9/11, and scheduled a radio interview, hit two major snags, foundered, and finally sank.

The first snag was Chomsky's claim that I had promised to completely avoid bringing up the subject of 9/11 in our interview. In fact, had I made no such promise. I had simply suggested that we "emphasize our areas of agreement." When one emphasizes one aspect of a topic, that does not mean that one completely eliminates all mention of the other aspects. Chomksy's misreading of the email record, and his persistence in clinging to that misreading after I had called his attention to it, is symptomatic of the deep irrationality, tinged with reflexive hostility, that colors his attitude toward those who question the official version of 9/11. A psychologist might suspect that Chomsky has such a strong desire to avoid any discussion of the empirical facts of 9/11 that he misreads by projecting his desire upon words that clearly say the opposite. As the French saying goes, "il prend ses désirs pour des réalités" - he mistakes his desires for realities.

The other snag was the question of whether Chomsky thinks it really matters who did 9/11. He has been widely quoted as saying "it doesn't matter." Those quotes, along with Chomsky's unremitting hostility to the 9/11 truth movement, his blithe insistence that even if the World Trade Center was taken down by controlled demolition that would simply prove that Bin Laden did it, his complete refusal to examine and debate empirical evidence, and so on, seem to suggest that he thinks the truth about 9/11 is unimportant. When I posted those quotes, along with William Blum's million-dollar question - "Why doesn't Chomsky think it would be important to prove 9/11 was an inside job?" - Chomsky responded with an angry tirade, claiming that the "it doesn't matter" quotes were taken out of context, and that in fact he thinks it WOULD matter very much to prove that 9/11 was an inside job, because it would be important to convict Bush and Cheney. I responded by accepting his explanation about the quotes, and apologizing for taking them out of context. His response was another angry tirade. So I apologized again, and then a third time - eliciting more angry demands that I apologize, as if I had not already done so three times!

A charitable inference from Chomsky's statements is that he thinks the only reason it would be important to prove 9/11 was a false-flag attack is to convict Bush and Cheney before they leave office. Informed that 9/11 lawsuits such as Ellen Mariani's were quashed for "national security" reasons, Chomsky wrote: "Rather, you and your associates should file a lawsuit that does not request any evidence, and therefore won't hit a national security barrier. That conclusion follows directly from your assertions and charges. The TM has already delayed so long that it may not be worthwhile, but at least there are a few months left." (My emphasis.)

Chomsky ignores the obvious: 9/11 doubled the military budget overnight, stripped Americans of their liberties and destroyed their Constitution, launched two illegal Nazi-style wars of aggression, and justified the murder of more than one million Muslims because they are Muslims. None of this will magically end when Bush and Cheney step down. The military budget will not return to pre-9/11 levels. The Constitution will not be magically restored, and the many blatant unconstitutional acts, approved by Democrats as well as Republicans, will not magically vanish. The wars of aggression in Afghanistan, Iraq, and perhaps Pakistan and Iran - all psychologically justified by the demonization of the "Muslim" 9/11 patsies and by extension Muslims in general - will not magically end. The one-million-Muslim holocaust launched by 9/11 will not magically cease; it will in all probability expand, as oil prices rise and Israel's strategic situation becomes more precarious. And the use of murderous false-flag attacks to trigger wars, authoritarianism and genocide will not magically follow Bush and Cheney into the proverbial dustbin of history.

Only the full exposure of 9/11 truth - the truth that 9/11 was a false-flag attack designed to demonize Muslims and justify their mass murder, while destroying liberty and militarizing society - will undo all this damage, and then some. Full exposure of 9/11 truth will enrage Americans, who will demand that the military-industrial complex and its national security state be destroyed once and for all. It will enrage them into slashing the military budget by more than 90% and returning to a "defend the borders" rather than "conquer the world" posture. It will enrage them into demanding a return to Constitutional rule. It will enrage them into cutting US ties to Israel, and thereby restoring good relations with the Muslim peoples of the oil-producing lands.

For some reason, Chomsky does not seem to want this to happen. Why not? Read our correspondence, and the rest of Chomsky's writings on 9/11, along with "The Shame of Noam Chomsky and the Gatekeepers of the Left" in Barrie Zwicker's Towers of Deception...and see if you can figure it out. Maybe it will seem obvious to you, "so simple a five-year-old child could understand it." Well, to quote Groucho, please find me a five-year-old child, because I can't make heads or tails of it.

I don't think Barrett should have published the e-mails, as much as I deplore Chomsky's abandonment of common sense regarding 9/11. I think Barrett would have been better off summarizing the exchange in his own words.

It's astonishing that Chomsky thinks that the controlled demolition of WTC7 is evidence that points to bin Laden, and feels the same way about the Towers. That's shocking. Talk about focusing on a suspect and then making all the evidence fit that suspect.

I never expect to see Chomsky on the right side of the 9/11 issue. He'll go down with the ship first.

f**k chomsky, he is a traitor to every hard working american citizen as he sets up a world of confusion and blockades to justice.

he was also a key player in the pat tillman execution and has a lot of explaining to do.

who did chomsky call after reading tillman's letters?

what did chomsky say?

how long were the calls?

What about emails?

text messages?

daily actions?

car routes?

All the surveillance that the National Reconnaissaince Office conducts on all their slaves.

C'mon NRO, we pay you like $100 Billion a year on this shit, give up the goods on Chomsky/Tillman!

Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

I agree Sane, he is a traitor, one who has made a living off portraying himself to be a man of integrity and honour - a hero for the left. I don't think there is anything wrong with Dr Barrett exposing this e-mail exchange, although it is a shame Dr Barrett told Chomsky he would not. However, I think there comes a time when it is important to expose people like this, so the public can see the man himself for who he is, and the smoke and mirrors political system for what it is too.

Logged

To be persuasive, we must be believable,To be believable, we must be credible,To be credible, we must be truthful.- Edward R. Murrow

"A plan would have been leaked." Yeah, Noam and hidden in plain sight. The plans were published in the zionist/neocon PNAC documents.

"Look at the evidence...(911)...unexplained...(dribble) the evidence produced was worthless...low credibility...isolated on this...elaborate conspiracy theories...wrong, diverting people from serious issues, even if true who cares, who killed JKF, who cares... the evidence is overwhelming...serious issues over ones that don't matter."

Noam, the evidence is overwhelming you are a psychopath.

"Who cares?"

I care. 3000 New York families care. The rescue workers and their family cares.

The Patriots are coming for the baby killers, war criminals, and their collaborators, apologists, facilitators, Noam..."keep a light on," I have little to no doubt they will be coming for you.

People say you're pretty smart. I have to wonder, what Kool-Aide they're drinking?

"Who cares?" Yes, Noam you have a personality disorder. You are a psychopath!

I would advise you to take an pre-Alzheimer's exam before seeing the archaeologist about your late exhibit.

I agree Sane, he is a traitor, one who has made a living off portraying himself to be a man of integrity and honour - a hero for the left. I don't think there is anything wrong with Dr Barrett exposing this e-mail exchange, although it is a shame Dr Barrett told Chomsky he would not. However, I think there comes a time when it is important to expose people like this, so the public can see the man himself for who he is, and the smoke and mirrors political system for what it is too.

Absolutely!

The more exposure of his total bullshit, the quicker people can wake up and realize how thick the lies are.

Wake up! There are criminals all over and they have been chipping away at the constitution and our freedom for decades!

Logged

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Damascus

His argument against the second amendment is total B.S.. He contends that if the people have guns then the government has tanks so a second amendment doesnt mater. I wish he would tell that to the Jews in Poland that left the cities to form resistance in the wild back in WWII. They lived while their counterparts that stayed in the cities were systematically executed. The Germans had tanks then and given that technology is very much greater today there is also tech-savvy civilians. Resistance is not futile there is always a counter. Never say "give up".

My strong belief is that it's important to challenge Chomsky -- and anyone else -- who brushes aside the genesis of 9/11. If I have to call Chomsky the leader of an idiocracy to get him to do some d*mn research, then that's what I'll do. Because there are only two options: Either Chomsky has researched 9/11 and lied to us about his conclusions, or he hasn't done the research.

If one hasn't done the research on a subject, then one is intellectually bankrupt to brush aside competing theories on that subject. Brushing aside theories in an unresearched area is simply not the way an intellectual behaves. When asked a question on a subject he has not researched, an intellectual simply says, "I don't know." That can be his only answer. To say "It doesn't matter" is not just intellectually bankrupt but in this case grotesque.

Elias, I know your work and I respect your work. And your opinion on Chomsky is not going to keep me from going after him like he was the last man on earth -- which, as regards his opinion on 9/11, he may soon be:

If Comsky were a true intellectual (as he purports to be), he would be open to 9/11 facts contrary to the official view. He would have no problem speaking with Kevin Barrett or anyone else in the intellectual community on the subject of 9/11. But Chomsky has mysteriously backed out of his interview with Kevin Barrett

. . . and he exhibits nothing but contempt for members of the 9/11 truth movement -- of which you are one.

By the way, when I said in my letter (reproduced below) that Chomsky has the same goals as the New World Order elite, I did not mean to suggest (and I did not say) that Chomsky is "working for" the New World Order elite. But having someone of the intellectual stature of Noam Chomsky echoing Bush's famous words ("Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories") can't exactly be doing the NWO agenda any harm. Of course, anyone who pays U.S. federal income taxes is *working for* the NWO, whether they know it or not -- and I assume Chomsky pays his federal taxes like a good slave.

Remember, Chomsky believes that 19 Arabs with boxcutters pulled off the technologically sophisticated events of 9/11.

At first I thought not even to respond to a message calling Chomsky the "leader of the idiocracy". Such name-calling is below any civilized standard. However, I was curious on what grounds the author of the article about Chomsky on Prison Planet, referred to below, arrives to such a conclusion. What I discovered is an article abounding in allegations, but poor in hard facts or even in direct quotations of Chomsky. The allegation that Chomsky is working for the New World Order and supports One World Government, is not substantiated. I have never come across any declaration, let alone efforts, by Chomsky to promote the NWO. The fact that many people adore him and follow his lead cannot be blamed on him. If people behave like sheep, it's their fault. To my knowledge Chomsky has not promoted himself more than any other scholar, and actually behaves more modestly than most of his critics. How many of personalities of his fame bother to answer emails of remote, unknown, correspondents?

I have been criticizing him for having failed to deal with the events of 9/11. As a 9/11 truther who has come to the conclusion that the US government most likely masterminded 9/11, I am fully aware of Chomsky's reluctance to deal with these events. I am not happy that he has not been willing to look at the evidence (or lack of). I told him so. However, I have no reason to read into his position any hidden agenda. Chomsky has at all times been a structuralist. A structuralist conception of society is based on the clash of classes, not on the personalities of individual politicians. This view that I consider too dogmatic, has led him to reject the political significance of conspiracies, such as 9/11 or the assassination of JFK. One may differ about the significance of certain conspiracies but this does not justify slandering him or allege that he plays a double game. In my opinion, some conspiracies by the ruling elite provide a rare insight in the mechanism by which the ruling elite works and a lever to expose the abyss between the ruling elite and the People.

It is ludicrous to conflate Chomsky with the promoters of the NWO, let alone with an imperialist agenda. Chomsky has spent years of his life to expose the crimes of US imperialism, in Indonesia, East Timor, Central America and elsewhere, long before most 9/11 truthers began to examine US foreign policies, or were even born. His critique of Israeli policies have alienated most US Jews from him. While it is alleged that he is a Zionist, such allegations are ludicrous. Here is, for example, an interview with him: http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19970609.htm, regarding the role of Israel as a Western colony. What Zionist would designate Shimon Peres, known in the West as an Israeli "moderate" as a war criminal? Chomsky has presented a compelling model of how corporate mass media operate (Manufacturing Consent). This model has been a template for many of us for years. His book about the history of the United States (Year 501), is a masterpiece about what has been suppressed in the US. With due respect to those eminent 9/11 truthers whose names appear on the website of Patriots for 9/11 Truth (http://patriotsquestion911.com/), how many of these fine people have contributed anything approaching what Chomsky has done to expose US imperialism and US crimes around the world?

It is easy to criticize Chomsky for what he has not focussed on. Such critique is not fair. Chomsky is just one person. It is not an institution, let alone a government agency. He needs time to sleep, eat and relax. He cannot do everything. Much of what he DID has been excellent research. Let us give him credit for that and go on with our own work in researching issues that he did not research. There is enough to do for everybody.

While I am truly frustrated that Chomsky does not support the 9/11 truth movement, I consider it counter-productive to keep harping on Chomsky's failures, as if he were the US government. As a person interested in exposing 9/11 and other suspected "false flag" events, and as one interested to know more about the role of financial capital (including the Federal Reserve system and the international banking system) in determining global policies, I believe that I can engage in such research without having to denigrate others, such as Noam Chomsky.

Last, but not least, according to civilized morals, a person is deemed innocent unless proven guilty. This principle applies equally to Prof. Noam Chomsky, who must be regarded as innocent of the allegations made in the article, unless compelling evidence is presented to the contrary.

Over one million dead and counting. Tens of thousands wounded, DU released, the gift of death for the next eight billion years.

911 the defining moment in the new century and this "zionist" gatekeeper says, "who cares."

I will do one better.

The holocaust? I don't give a rat's arse! Who cares. It was a small genocide in Europe compared to the historical genocide zionists have been responsible for in the past, and what they are trying to accomplish today.

I've listened to a lot of Chomsky's lectures and the "Failed States" audiobook, I'm confused about what process got him to deny 9/11 truth, if it's just outside the scope of his interests, if he wants to keep his job as head of a department at MIT or if he's actively withholding part of the bigger picture from his audience. He does highlight the empire-building aspect of U.S. foreign policy and how the poor and middle class are screwed over, so he's not all bad. From what I've been able to tell, he sifts vasts amounts of published (possibly mainstream) media from around the world, maybe he just ignores the blogosphere and alternative media and has simply not been informed of the real power behind the throne.

It is disgustingly curious how so many are apt to attack one who has done so much in breaking paradigms and criticising omnipotent powers. Calling him a quisling is a massive rush to judgement and typical of the bloodlusting mentality exhibited by medieval townsfolk bent on burning a "witch" who was once a valued member of their community. As the evidence and pressure mounts Chomsky/Zinn and others occupying ivory towers may find it more and more difficult to maintain this dismissive stance and face the ugly truth. Accusations of agent and gatekeeper are more intriguing despite, being completely unfounded, than the idea of simply being deceived.

Scumsky is no American Patriot. If the founding fathers were around they would tar a feather this traitor.

What?!!

All he does is criticise Israel, the US and the international corporations. Please point out to me where he has supported Israel as you claim. He has written and said quite a bit so this shouldnt be tough.

Is everything you have read/heard concerning Chomsky contained within the tiny walls of this forum?

His criticism of Israel 'is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing' except to become the tojan horse at the appointed time.

I know precisely what a quisling is without google and what you are suggesting is not really true to the definition.

you said : -- tale told by an idiot --- Chomsky is no idiot and far surpasses average intellect -- full of sound and fury --- I dont think I have ever heard him raise his voice and his ability to reference is remarkable -- signifying nothing.. --- strange use of the word signify

You are the one spouting rhetoric and saying nothing, seemingly in an attempt to bewilder I would suggest.

These so called intellectuals are nothing. Anyone who talks to much and runs their mouth without saying anything is full of shit. I'm packing 181 IQ and I am an Aboriginal (suck on that one Bell Curve)

I don't need Chomsky to tell me what to think. I don't need Frank Lowe the 9/11 criminal and his faux Lowe institute telling me what Australians are thinking about either.

Walk away from these sources and open your own mind. We are the real intellectuals, we are men and women who are awake to the lies and deception society is. Any one of us has the capacity to become much greater than chomsky.

I know precisely what a quisling is without google and what you are suggesting is not really true to the definition.

you said : -- tale told by an idiot --- Chomsky is no idiot and far surpasses average intellect -- full of sound and fury --- I dont think I have ever heard him raise his voice and his ability to reference is remarkable -- signifying nothing.. --- strange use of the word signify

You are the one spouting rhetoric and saying nothing, seemingly in an attempt to bewilder I would suggest.

Yepper, we are dealing with an intellectual here. "A tale told my an idiot" in quotes mind you, " full of sound and fury signifying nothing," is from Shakespeare's MacBeth.

Yepper, we are dealing with an intellectual here. "A tale told my an idiot" in quotes mind you, " full of sound and fury signifying nothing," is from Shakespeare's MacBeth.

Perfect quisling trojan horse move when it comes to 911.

These scumbag, murdering, schmucks think they are so clever.

"By way of deception, thou shalt do war." Mossad motto.

I dont care who you are quoting, it has no relevance as I pointed out. Speaking of intellectual curiosity, do you believe you are on topic?

So let me get this straight, Chomsky has been groomed for 30 odd years, being a leader in the anti-war movement, risking jail, producing cutting edge analysis of problems and true objectives of mainstream media, criticising Israel and American global hegemony, etc etc etc ---- just to thwart efforts of the academic left in fingering the real 911 perps?Is this what you are saying?

I dont care who you are quoting, it has no relevance as I pointed out. Speaking of intellectual curiosity, do you believe you are on topic?

So let me get this straight, Chomsky has been groomed for 30 odd years, being a leader in the anti-war movement, risking jail, producing cutting edge analysis of problems and true objectives of mainstream media, criticising Israel and American global hegemony, etc etc etc ---- just to thwart efforts of the academic left in fingering the real 911 perps?Is this what you are saying?

I've printed it out and read part way through it, he gave a critique of the 9/11 truth movement with a little prompting, which I've compiled below. My questions about Chomksy's position were answered early in, it looks like he thinks that only a specialist can interpret the evidence (or discussions of such evidence), and his attitude toward the 9/11 truth movement is "where were you when people outside the borders of the U.S. were being killed?".

I'm struck by your reference to "bad feelings" ("bad feelings that have developed among those who admire your work but not your interpretation of 9/11"). That's a curious feature of the Truth Movement, one of many that distinguishes it from activist movements generally. The source, perhaps, is reliance on rumors, perhaps the kind of rumors that led you to believe that I have opinions on the collapse of the buildings, though I have never expressed any, and cannot, for the reasons mentioned. I suppose another source is the curious "with us or against us" mentality that pervades much of the movement: either you accept our claims, or you're a "left gatekeeper." I've never seen anything like that in 60 years of activist engagement.

One of the many remarkable features of the Truth Movement is its reliance on gossip for its extensive and passionate vilification campaigns, based on circulating personal letters, phrases extracted from interviews, etc. I'm assuming we agree on this, and so will continue.

You say, correctly, that "It is only human to get angry when one discovers one has been victimized by a lie. And the strength of the anger is likely to be proportional to the size, and the destructiveness or hurtfulness, of the lie." That's true. Suppose that the government demolished WTC and lied about it. That would rank so low among "the size, and the destructiveness or hurtfulness of the lie," that it would take some work even to go down the list to find it. Consider the lies that led to the massacre of perhaps 4 million people in Indochina and the destruction of three countries (not to speak of creating the Khmer Rouge). Or the lies that led to acquiescence in Reaganite terror, leaving some 200,000 tortured and mutilated bodies in Central America and four countries ruined, perhaps forever; along with 1.5 million corpses in the countries subjected to Reagan-backed South African depredations; and on, and on. Or, since you appropriately see things from a Muslim perspective, consider one of the very minor pecadilloes and lies of leaders, Clinton's destruction of most of the pharmaceutical industry in a poor African (mostly Muslim) country, with an estimated tens of thousands dead -- small by our standards. People who care about atrocities and lies do get angry about the silencing of the facts, the incredible lies, and the vilification of those who try to break the silence. But they don't react in the TM manner, unique in my experience of 60 years, or in anything I've read.

One of the remarkable features of the TM is its ranking of scale of atrocities. I have found that many (I suspect most) of TM adherents have little or no experience with political activism. I don't recognize their names among active protestors of the Indochina wars, Reagan's vicious crimes, Clinton's sanctions against Iraq that were condemned as "genocidal" by the Westerners who know most about Iraq (the two highly respected international diplomats who ran the "oil for food" program and resigned in protest), killing perhaps 1 million people, and on through a long list. Perhaps that explains their extraordinary reactions, so different from those of people who have spent their lives engaged in trying to end incomparably worse atrocities.

On 9/11 dissidents being silenced, that belief may also result from lack of engagement in activism regarding horrendous crimes. In fact, 9/11 dissidents have been granted kid gloves treatment that is quite unusual -- the reason, I suspect, is that the establishment welcomes their main contribution, which has been to draw a great deal of energy and attention away from protest over ongoing crimes that vastly exceed what the TM charges concerning 9/11. They repeatedly appear on CSPAN, are all over talk radio, the books are best-sellers prominently displayed in bookstores, they receive nothing like the hysterical denunciations and slanders to which political activists are subjected regularly, and on, and on. What happened to you is deplorable, and should be vigorously protested. It is also most unusual. I've heard of nothing remotely comparable concerning Griffen, Falk, or other very prominent advocates of the TM, though it's not uncommon, regrettably, in the case of political activists and dissidents.

I have also never seen anything like the incredible arrogance of the TM. To take just one example of the many familiar to activists and dissidents, the US-backed Indonesian invasion of East Timor killed perhaps 1/4 of the population, probably the leading genocide of the late 20th century. Those who spent a great deal of effort for 25 years trying to do something about it were naturally angry about the incredible lies of the press and the intellectual community (Samantha Power, to take a recent example) and their unwillingness to allow the truth to emerge so that the horrors could be ended: continuing horrors, as in the other cases I mentioned. But I can't recall that any of us produced a flood of denunciations of those who went along with the government/media line -- that is, virtually everyone -- condemning them as "gatekeepers," sell-outs, or worse. These reactions are unique to the TM, in my experience.

Also unique is its unwillingness to think through simple questions. Let's suppose it turns out that the WTC was destroyed by a controlled demolition. Then who would the finger point to? Osama bin Laden, obviously. After all, related groups came close to blowing up the WTC in 1993, and with a little better planning, would have killed perhaps 10,000 people. Furthermore, no one else gains by attributing the crime to Saudis, bin Laden's main enemy. In contrast, for the US government to implicate Saudis would be near lunacy. That undercuts their alleged goal of laying the basis for an invasion of Iraq -- for that, they would have certainly implicated Iraqis, so that they wouldn't have had to concoct fantasies, quickly demolished, about Saddam's responsibility. The choice of Saudis also seriously harmed relations with one of their most valued allies, and caused them extreme embarrassment, including the need to fly Saudi businessmen quickly out of the country in violation of their closing of air space (and rather odd, if they'd planned to implicate Saudis). That's just for starters.

You and others have every right to pursue your priorities, but not to have "bad feelings" about others who pursue what they regard as much more urgent priorities (rightly, even transparently in my opinion). Your concern over what you see as lies is appropriate, but as noted, far down the list of such regular behavior of states, media, and the general intellectual community. And the extraordinary arrogance and self-indulgence of the TM ought to concern people who adopt its priorities.

The TM appears to consist almost entirely of people who are remote from activism, so the huge amount of attention and energy they devote to this does not in itself reduce activism. But they draw in many others, who find it a lot easier to blog and discuss on the internet and to post on Youtube than to carry out the difficult and demanding work of organizing and activism. Another respect in which the TM differs from activist movements, apart from those I've mentioned, is how little it does about any ongoing crime. According to polls, maybe 1/3 to 1/2 of the population either believe the TM view or consider it plausible. With a fraction of that kind of support serious activists would have made an enormous difference in policy, but the TM organizes no demonstrations against ongoing crimes , no tax resistance or other forms of resistance, no law suits, in fact none of the actions that are second-nature to activists. Just filling cyberspace. That's a large part of the reason why there isn't much more protest against the Iraq war.

Chomsky does layout the reasoning behind his dismissive stance in his correspondence with Barrett, which I among others find exceedingly weak. It is indicative of a particular paradigm that is found among the highly educated professionals. These people tend to be somewhat set in their understanding of global machinations and dont see the invisible hand at work, otherwise it would risk shattering a concrete system of belief. I see this all the time, heck, I'm related to them. Nonetheless I agree with Davidsson's letter that this is a case of a structured mindset not some nefarious scheming agent with a direct phone line to Rockerfeller's office.

Cant believe Barrett disclosed these private messages after declaring he would honour Chomsky's wish for privacy. The cheeseball feels justified because Chomsky backed out of the interview. I did not read where this "interview" was solidified. I do think Barrett does good work but he does have some serious issues to work on.

Thanks for playing Sparky. Don't forget to pick up a copy of the home game on your way out.

One last piece of advice, don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out.

Your nattering gibberish has provided some comic relief. Absolutely nothing of substance while pretentiously spouting "riddles" is some transparent attempt to be appear intelligent. Home Game? are you recommending a book on fatherhood? You are weird. Haha.Come on give us some more irrelevant quotes.

Deflection, misdirection, shifting the topic, twisting the issue with self aggrandized mental masturbation, all designed to muddy the waters of truth and protect the guilty.

The Truth movement needs to concentrate on going after the money. They need to push the peer reviewed scientific papers to the insurance companies and demand they begin insurance fraud law suits against “Lucky” Larry Silverstein and his neocon cabal.

There isn’t an intellectual worth his salt when challenged to find the truth around an event so monstrously important as 911 says, “Who cares.” It is a mystery why this windbag wasn’t fired immediately.

This event on the size of “a new Pearl Harbor” is the neocon's Reichstag fire. They use it to instigate a “generational war” using American capital and blood to fight their enemies. It is causing great harm to American’s future.

Who cares about the Odigo messages coming to Israelis in the WTC to abandon the buildings two hours before the strike?

Who cares about the original seat assignment given by the stewardess pointing to a hijacking specialist in the Mossad?

Who cares about the 200-450 nuclear weapons in the hands of end of the world death cult that has an ax to grind?

The neocon psychopaths are cold blooded killers. This is not a Jewish movement. This is a political movement that hijacked a religion. All roads lead back to Rothchild.

When they are exposed it will be checkmate on The Fed, the International Banksters, and Israel. Their close friends they lick the boots for like Rockefeller will also fall.

They have to be stopped and The Constitution must be defended against these “who cares” monsters.

Chomsky beautifully contradicts himself when he always makes the point that 9/11 Truth simply becomes a diversion from the real important issues like U.S. backed genocides around the world. Though I agree to a certain point, and can probably see his point of view seeing as how he's spent most of his life covering these things; but 9/11 happened in America, not Indonesia or Palestine or South America. Most Americans wouldn't care as much about Indonesia much in the same way that Indonesians wouldn't care as much about 9/11 as they would about what happened on their own land. It almost goes back to the territorial nature of people; and Chomsky is seeing it from the POV of blanket activism--which always appeals to more left-leaning people who've always seen 9/11 simply as payback for decades of genocides as opposed to a covert intelligence operation funded by multinationals to begin bringing down this country.

Also, the NWO is obviously much more comfortable thinking Americans will care about Palestine more than they would their own false flag operation. What does it hurt them if someone is being critical of 30 year old East Timor policies as opposed to shedding light on the biggest scale crime of the century? This is probably also why Amy Goodman and Chomsky will always report on one but not the other.

Jimmy Carter, for example, is allowed to publish a high-profile book comparing Israel to apartheid. You think anyone would've published a book talking about how ZBig and him started al Qaeda and kept 'em on CIA payroll throughout the years?

Logged

"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of something. They know there is a power somewhere, so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so pervasive, they had better not speak above their breath."

Chomsky beautifully contradicts himself when he always makes the point that 9/11 Truth simply becomes a diversion from the real important issues like U.S. backed genocides around the world. Though I agree to a certain point, and can probably see his point of view seeing as how he's spent most of his life covering these things; but 9/11 happened in America, not Indonesia or Palestine or South America. Most Americans wouldn't care as much about Indonesia much in the same way that Indonesians wouldn't care as much about 9/11 as they would about what happened on their own land. It almost goes back to the territorial nature of people; and Chomsky is seeing it from the POV of blanket activism--which always appeals to more left-leaning people who've always seen 9/11 simply as payback for decades of genocides as opposed to a covert intelligence operation funded by multinationals to begin bringing down this country.

Also, the NWO is obviously much more comfortable thinking Americans will care about Palestine more than they would their own false flag operation. What does it hurt them if someone is being critical of 30 year old East Timor policies as opposed to shedding light on the biggest scale crime of the century? This is probably also why Amy Goodman and Chomsky will always report on one but not the other.

Jimmy Carter, for example, is allowed to publish a high-profile book comparing Israel to apartheid. You think anyone would've published a book talking about how ZBig and him started al Qaeda and kept 'em on CIA payroll throughout the years?

Good Points and I agree. Personally I find Goodman more reprehensible than Chomsky, she gets this deer in the headlights look whenever confronted on the issue --- and there is footage of her running away from the collapse of WTC 7 for F%$^KSAKE. She appears to be suppressing things while Chomsky has his ignorance nimbus tightly fitted.

Chomsky's position came up at a screening of 911 Mysteries where Prof Graeme MacQueen was speaking and I mentioned that "Chomsky may be just going with the flow to avoid being mitigated further." Macqueen said he was acquainted with him and was perplexed by his stance but didnt give my point any validity as I think now it does not deserve. As I mentioned before I think it is out of his realm of knowledge and would threaten the world as he knows it. The person I would like to hear Chomsky debate/talk with is Peter Dale Scott. I think Chomsky would have greater respect for Scott's ability to reference and factual manner of speaking more than most.

Well despite saying "I do not have the expert knowledge of civil-mechanical engineering and the structure of the buildings to investigate the arguments presented, and do not intend to spend the enormous amount of time and effort required to attain it." he still weighs in with some pretty strong opinions in this video clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwZ-vIaW6Bc. The term "gatekeeper" definitely springs to mind, I remember watching a lecture where a student was asking about by what mechanism the government controls the media and his response was that they self-censor. I imagine that being a consumer of mainstream media, he wasn't aware that the U.S. is an oligarchy and has the luxury of having stooges in key positions of power, and only allowing stories in the media that suit their agenda. And people look to him for insight into how the world works.

Well despite saying "I do not have the expert knowledge of civil-mechanical engineering and the structure of the buildings to investigate the arguments presented, and do not intend to spend the enormous amount of time and effort required to attain it."

BS. you don't need an engineering degree to understand the demolitions, you need a willingness to believe your own eyes. admittedly, it does take a lot of time to develop substantial tech. skills, for most people.

i have a mechanical engineering degree from a junior university near Palo Alto.

the best engineer i have ever worked with in Silicon Valley was a physics grad from University of Connecticut.

BS. you don't need an engineering degree to understand the demolitions, you need a willingness to believe your own eyes. admittedly, it does take a lot of time to develop substantial tech. skills, for most people.

i have a mechanical engineering degree from a junior university near Palo Alto.

the best engineer i have ever worked with in Silicon Valley was a physics grad from University of Connecticut.

Jim is a programmer but he has the diligence & the tech skills to dig deep, as he has done in his own investigation of 9-11.

i watched Jim debate a degreed, experienced, licensed civil engineer about the demolitions. the engineer found zero tech. errors on Jim's website.

What do the people at your university reply with when asked about controlled demolition on 9/11?

Quote

I imagine that being a consumer of mainstream media, he wasn't aware that the U.S. is an oligarchy and has the luxury of having stooges in key positions of power, and only allowing stories in the media that suit their agenda. And people look to him for insight into how the world works.

I don't think so, it's fashionable to deride the 9/11 truth movement and he's jumped on the bandwagon. He believes in the credibility of government commissions (Warren Commission, 9/11 Commission) and doesn't think 9/11 is worth looking into. His hobby of reading mainstream news articles from around the world doesn't seem to be a path that leads to 9/11 truth so he'll have no reason to suspect the official story until the 9/11 truth movement reaches critical mass.

He's an intellectual, but his mind is filled with disinfo mixed with good information. And ultimately, he's a gatekeeper, because he tells you lies interspersed with truth. I think his followers are well-intentioned, but more examination of the facts in the matter of 9/11 will quickly show that they aren't being told the whole truth by this guy.